Auto bailout contentions


#1

Rarely does one read a newspaper article so completely in possession of the facts it strives to present, nor presents them in such a cogent fashion. This is indeed how events went down, and the reason Chrysler is not owned by the likes of Roger Penske and associates, who presumably would have made efforts at the acquisition had it been made available, as evidenced by their attempts regarding what was Saturn.

Jeep production in China and Italy may help Chrysler and Fiat, but I dn’t think the American auto worker is going to see it in exactly the light the Obama administration is casting it. In other contexts, it is exactly the same scenario in which the Obama administration mischaracterizes offshoring as outsourcing, in its condemantion of it. Barack Obama, international capitalist, has a certain hollow ring to it.
Obama didn’t rescue the U.S. auto industry: Here’s what actually did - Washington DC SCOTUS | Examiner.com


#2

That series of facts will never see the daylight beyond this paper or whatever it is. The compound problem with the Bush loans , it only exacerbated the fiscal problems the auto giants were having. Their costs were exceeding production and profit line. Romney had it right when he stated on one of the debates, the only proper way for these two automakers to survive was to do a bankruptcy and reorganization. As it is now all they will do is sell off to the Europeans [ which Chrysler has done] or the Asian Factories because the autoworkers unions have placed a stranglehold on the manufacturing costs in America. Within ten years [if the unions are not brought to heel] I predict almost all auto manufacturing will come to a halt as well as other large vehicle manufacturing in America.
Romney does have his work cut out for himself.


#3

Romney was foolish to bring the topic up; it was a lose-lose proposition for him. Not that he wasn’t correct but, when the average American hears bankruptcy, they don’t hear re-organization, re-working of union contracts, etc…, they hear, “going out of business”.


#4

Bingo…strategic silence. But he DID at least cite his WSJ article in the debate to counter BHO’s lie.


#5

That is also why I don’t get all jacked up about the Akin and Mourdock screw-ups, Cam. People claim to want to know all about the issues, but what they really want, as evidenced by their actions, is a beauty contest. I don’t know how Romney could have finessed the auto bailout issue better, not exactly, but I know that, in that context, he should have. Which is the trouble with a deep primary field; they’re bound to discuss actual real issues at some point, and those comments and positions come back to haunt them. Lying isn’t required, though Obama has shown its utility, and it does have its uses. Romney’s middle ground election, and should he win, his governance, will be hindered by a passive campaign with its reliance on the state of the economy. I’m guessing that less than 30% of the electorate regard this election as the potential crisis turning point it should be. If Romney loses, it will be because he didn’t sound more like Paul Ryan, instead of speaking on a “no-win” auto bailout that is, if anything, now history. In his defense, that’s a damn hard thing to do.


#6

I disagree on most of that Sway.

  1. Akin and Mourdock are deeply disturbing because they ARE in the minds of the electorate for all the wrong reasons. Both have blown comfortable leads due to the public paying attention…and the Dems making sure they get public and press heat about their dumb remarks. That they have cost their states conservative representation is bad enough…that they will cost Romney Senate control damages the entire agenda and will make middle of the road compromise with the Dems a necessity for anything to get done…even Supreme Court justices…and we know how that works out. Akin is the more egregious as he turned his back on his party for his own selfish interests.

  2. While one could wish for a more dynamic candidate…Romney has gotten a lot better as evidenced by his favorables. He has run EXACTLY the right campaign to win the election…even if he loses. The middle was the ONLY place he could go to get the votes he needed. Campaigning as an idealogue partisan would give him no chance whatsoever. He has now moved from economics to big picture Reganesque rhetoric and hopefully that will seal the deal. If he loses … my view is that
    a) NO Republican will have a chance to beat a Dem again without an economic collapse. Demographics and handouts will rule.
    b) He waited to long to forcefully make his case…Labor day was the time to start getting aggressive…not the first debate. Too many charges went unanswered for too long…autos, tax returns, the 1%, etc… I thought the 1st week after the Ryan pick and their aggressiveness on medicare on the Ryan plan and Obama’s theft of $716 billion were indications of the right track and tone…but it only lasted a week.

Ah well…hopefully we get a win instead of despair for the country and ourselves on Tuesday.


#7

I’ll agree on 2b.

The political sins of Mourdock and Akin are no worse than Romeny’s WSJ op-ed on the auto bailout. Had Romney finessed that one issue, he’d be winning going away.

I’m rapidly moving into the Kevin Williamson camp; the whole thing is a crap shoot, and little more than a series of random events. (g)


#8

Let for a second even pretend the the word bankruptcy stirs up the same emotions as the word rape. (which by the way its not even close and futile to even attempt to compare the two). Romney’s comments were made before he even decided to run for president and it was in an attempt to stop the auto bailouts, a worthy cause. Akin and Mourdock made their comments in the middle of their general election campaigns, for no specific reason and they didnt even deal with a relevant issue.


#9

Romney’s comments were made after the auto bailout and even longer after it was known he’d be running for president in '12, something that was known in November of 2008.


#10

Romney’s comments were BEFORE the bail out heres the 1st paragraph

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

and no it was not known 2 weeks after the 2008 election that Romney would run in 2012. Even if there was speculation, It was years before it was announced and definitely not near the end of the general election campaign like Akin and Mourdock.